N.M. Stat. Ann. § 45-5-408
History: 1978 Comp., § 45-5-408, enacted by Laws 1989, ch. 252, § 21; 1993, ch. 301, § 18; 2022, ch. 36, § 2.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1989, ch. 252, § 21, repealed former 45-5-408 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 257, § 5-408, relating to permissible court orders, and enacted a new section, effective June 16, 1989.
The 2022 amendment, effective July 1, 2022, revised the procedures for the appointment of temporary conservators, and clarified certain reporting requirements; in Subsection A, after "When a petition for", deleted "appointment of a conservator" and added "conservatorship", after "set out in", deleted "this section" and added "Section 45-5-407 NMSA 1978", after "irreparable harm to the", added "alleged incapacitated person's or minor's", and after "or both", deleted "of the person to be protected"; in Subsection B, after "Upon", added "separate", after "shall schedule" added "and hold", after "appointment of a temporary conservator", deleted "for the earliest possible date, appoint counsel for the person to be protected and give notice as provided in Section 45-5-405 NMSA 1978" and added the remainder of the subsection; added a new subsection designation "C." and redesignated former Subsection C as Subsection D; in Subsection C, after each occurrence of "immediate and irreparable harm to the", added "alleged incapacitated person's", after "financial interests", deleted "of the person to be protected", after "property", deleted "of the person to be protected", after "shall not exceed", deleted "sixty days, except that upon order of the court, the temporary conservatorship may be extended for no more than", and added the last sentence of the subsection; in Subsection D, after "without notice to the", added "alleged incapacitated", after the next occurrence of "person", deleted "to be protected" and added "and to the alleged incapacitated person's attorney", after "harm will result to the", added "alleged incapacitated person's", after "financial interests", deleted "of the person to be protected", after "before a", added "ten-day", deleted "The person to be protected shall be notified in a writing by the petitioner within twenty-four hours of the appointment of a temporary conservator in substantial accordance with the provisions of Subsection B of Section 45-5-405 NMSA 1978. On two days' notice to the party who obtained the appointment of a temporary conservator without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the person to be protected may appear and move for dissolution or modification of the court's order, and, in that event, the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require." and added the remainder of the subsection; added a new Subsection E and redesignated former Subsection D as Subsection F; and in Subsection F, after "shall have the", added "temporary", after "legal rights of the", added "alleged incapacitated", and after "person", deleted "to be protected" and added "as specified in the court order".
The 1993 amendment, effective July 1, 1993, rewrote this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.
District court's authority to order payment of attorney fees. — Where petitioner, through their attorney, filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian and conservator for petitioner's mother under the New Mexico Probate Code, and where the attorney's fees had been paid by the temporary conservator until other interested parties objected, and where the district court ordered the attorney fees to be paid from funds from the protected person's estate, and where the appointed guardian and conservator argued that the district court was without authority to order the estate to pay the attorney fees, the district court did not err in ordering that the attorney fees be paid from the estate of the protected person, because under Article 5 of the Uniform Probate Code, conservators may expend reasonably necessary sums for the benefit of a protected person after considering the impact such expenditures would have on the protected person's care and finances, and in this case, the district court found that the attorney's actions were necessary and taken for the mother's benefit and that the bills were reasonable, and no party suggested that paying the bills would be detrimental to the protected person. In re Elizabeth A., 2024-NMCA-017, cert. denied.